Gifted children—a label first coined by British polymath Francis Galton in 1869 and later expanded on by American psychologist Lewis M. Terman in the early 1900s—has been a term used to identify young children who demonstrate extraordinary talent, typically in a specific field or subject. It was believed by many professionals at the time that these children had the potential to develop into exceptionally talented adults, but this potential needed to be properly nurtured in order for gifted children to truly flourish in their adult lives.
Recognition of the necessity for expanded opportunities for gifted children has manifested in numerous ways — the most impactful being in 1973, when the Vincent Astor Foundation funded the installation of programs for gifted students in forty schools across Brooklyn and Manhattan. Today, elementary schools all over the country pride themselves on their Gifted and Talented programs.
On the surface, the mission of Gifted and Talented programs is a humble and righteous one: provide adequate enrichment to young students who have the potential to develop into prodigious adults. And yet, public attitudes toward Gifted and Talented programs are divided, as some students feel that the programs are inherently unfair and promote de facto segregation within NYC’s public school system.
Some studies of Gifted and Talented programs point to the detrimental effects on the mentality of youth who are placed in them and those excluded from them. Such effects include a sharp decrease in self-esteem, pressure from peers and adults, poor study habits in the future, and isolation from others. But why is it that a program that seemingly epitomizes academic preeminence has a higher chance of quashing young students’ potential than fostering it?
For starters, the “gifted” label, which can be placed on children as young as three years old, puts tremendous pressure on fragile and developing minds. By marking a child as gifted, educational authorities are solidifying within the mind of said child that intelligence comes naturally to them, and thus little effort is required to succeed in an educational setting. There is an implication that one is born with intellectual and creative abilities that cannot be acquired through hard work and perseverance, when this is simply not the case and is extremely toxic to the mentality of children, as it could interfere with their with their ability to persevere through the challenges they will inevitably face in their educational careers.
The results of a study done by a group of Turkish researchers in 2018 demonstrate that young gifted children are at higher risk of developing mental impairments than nongifted children and have even described themselves as inattentive. This is largely due to the pressure applied to them by parents and educators who continuously insist that they must succeed, otherwise they aren’t “gifted.” Thus, young children destroy their self-esteem and self-worth in an attempt to live up to these expectations. Gifted and Talented programs reward a specific type of academic intelligence, but being good at math or science is not necessarily an indication that one is smarter than their peers and should be isolated from them to hone their own talent.
In 1983, American Psychologist Howard Gardner proposed a theory of multiple intelligences: bodily, logical, linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, spatial, musical, and natural. Gifted and Talented programs focus primarily on the logical aspect of intellect and disregard affinity for other types of intelligence. While others argue that it may be appropriate and reasonable for schools to prioritize educational performance, development in all areas is crucial for children to truly evolve into well-rounded adults and self-actualize in adulthood. School should not simply prioritize core, liberal arts subjects such as literature, social studies, math, and science; it should nurture the minds of youth who spend upwards of eight hours a day in a building with their peers and help students realize their potential to succeed in the endeavors that matter most to them. Gifted and Talented programs fail to do this.
The mishandling of gifted students is just one of many reasons Gifted and Talented programs should not have a place in elementary schools. A lack of representation of racial minority students who may not come from financially advantaged backgrounds contributed to inadequate attention given to said students who may otherwise display signs of being “gifted.” A study conducted across 10 states in 2019 revealed that Black students make up only 8% of seats in gifted programs while making up 14% of the student population.
A piece written by Norm Fruchter, a previous member of the Community School Board in Brooklyn’s District 15, expressed indignation at the fact that wealthier families were able to prepare their children for the aptitude tests that would give their children spots in Gifted and Talented programs. “[T]he district learned that parents were having their children pre-tested and prepped by private psychologists, often using the same tests we were administering,” Fruchter said. “Though board members agreed that such practices violated the program’s entry criteria—selection based on demonstrated aptitude rather than prior preparation—we were stumped about how to prevent these practices.” This highlights the financial disparity between students from well-off backgrounds and disadvantaged backgrounds and the inequity in their admission into Gifted and Talented programs.
Avid supporters of Gifted and Talented programs argue that said programs are meant for students who are able to advance academically at quicker rates than their peers, and that these programs enable the progress of these gifted individuals who might otherwise be stymied in a general education setting where teachers need to cater to students of various ability levels. In protesting the removal of Gifted and Talented programs, many compare Gifted and Talented programs to special education programs, contending that they both exist in order to provide an appropriate education to students on “different levels.”
While it is true that different students require unique ways of teaching to succeed academically, the prevalent issue lies not within the foundation of Gifted and Talented programs, but in the way they have failed to be more inclusive and address the problems critics have been raising for years. Six-year olds should not be told that they’re better than their peers for being intellectually gifted, and they certainly should not be labelled as “gifted.” This is a title that imposes a strict standard of academic performance, leaving little room for acceptable error while simultaneously enforcing the idea that intellect is natural and cannot be nurtured. Moreover, racial and economic imbalances are glaringly obvious in these programs, and students are not given equal opportunities.
The concept of Gifted and Talented programs is one that should be revamped and shifted in order to fit the needs of all students. For starters, admission should not be based solely on test performances, as it commonly is. The requirements to enroll in a Gifted and Talented program should be expanded to be equal to students from all backgrounds, not just those who can afford preparation. While this isn’t an issue that can be fixed automatically, teachers and parents alike need to recognize that applying consistent pressure to young children who are still developing and still experiencing life will not make them any better at school. Gifted and Talented programs, as they are, do not provide much, if any, true value to students, and must be amended if educational authorities want young students to thrive in the future.
